Chris Foy has explained why VAR was right to uphold Sunderland’s penalty against Arsenal despite debate over Dan Ballard’s involvement
Chris Foy believes VAR was right to uphold Sunderland’s penalty against Arsenal, but says the incident would not have prompted an intervention had referee John Brooks waved play on.
Brooks pointed to the spot after Dan Ballard and Ezri Konsa went to ground inside the Arsenal penalty area, with Stuart Attwell subsequently checking the decision. David Raya saved Enzo Le Fée’s spot-kick, but the award itself generated debate over the contact between the two players.
Former Premier League referee Foy felt Konsa was clearly holding Ballard and concentrating on his opponent rather than the ball. He also acknowledged that the Sunderland defender had hold of Konsa’s shirt, explaining why the incident fell into a category where VAR would support either on-field decision.
“The previous day there was another incident with lots of noise around it: the decision to award Sunderland a penalty against Arsenal. Dan Ballard and Ezri Konsa go to ground in the Arsenal box and the verdict from John Brooks was penalty kick,” Foy said.
“You could quite clearly see that Konsa was holding Ballard and really focusing only on his opponent and not the ball. The VAR, Stuart Attwell, then checked the decision and had to determine whether the referee made a clear and obvious error.”
The distinction in Foy’s assessment is between whether an official would personally award the penalty and whether Brooks had made an error serious enough to warrant a review. In this instance, he felt Ballard’s involvement did not provide sufficient grounds to overturn the referee’s call.
The Echo has launched a new WhatsApp SAFC Channel to bring the latest news, analysis and team & injury updates direct to your phone.Simply click this link to join ourSAFC WhatsApp channel.
“Ballard has got a little bit of Konsa’s shirt too, and there’s a bit of tugging, but that in itself, with all the bits and bobs going on, doesn’t jump out as a clear and obvious error, so they stay with the on-field decision. What is important to note is the light touch from VARs this season.”
“Lots of people will say penalty. Others will say, not for me. Attwell was right to say check complete, confirming the penalty. If a penalty hadn’t been awarded, however, there would have been no intervention either because it’s not a clear and obvious error. It’s what we would term a check complete either way.”